OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[thejeff]

I'll agree with your single mom example. It's a silly system. A more graduated drop as you earned more would make far more sense. And universal health care would make a lot of those issues go away. Having health care tied to employment leads to a lot of problems and results in a system that costs more and produces worse results than other "developed" countries.

As for your university example, any decent sized bureaucracy works the same way. Any good sized company is full of politicking over departmental budgets and personnel. More money translates into more importance.

More importantly, I'm not sure how a flat tax addresses any of your concerns. I assume you're talking about a single income tax rate with no (or minimal) exemptions or deductions? Simplifying parts of the tax code would have benefits, but I don't see what that has to do with the actual flat part of the flat tax. You could equally well remove the deductions and keep graduated tax rates, or have a single rate with all the complex deductions.
A flat tax would also raise rates at the lower end and, especially if you also remove the deductions for her children, make your example single mom's situation worse.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I'll agree with your single mom example. It's a silly system. A more graduated drop as you earned more would make far more sense.

Yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by thejeff

And universal health care would make a lot of those issues go away. Having health care tied to employment leads to a lot of problems and results in a system that costs more and produces worse results than other "developed" countries.

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems. Second we don't want to provide free healthcare for illegal aliens as it only provides them more reasons for sneaking across the border. Any illegal aliens have trouble finding work which naturally increases the rate of crime. I believe anyone should be allowed to stay in America as long as they pass health and background tests... this would help keep out criminals and STDs. The third problem with government run healthcare is we know the government poorly runs a majority of responsibilities thus we don't want to be giving the government any new responsibilities until the previous ones have been fixed. The main reason is because once the government owns something it NEVER lets it go and the country doesn't need a new Major problem.

Originally Posted by thejeff

More importantly, I'm not sure how a flat tax addresses any of your concerns. I assume you're talking about a single income tax rate with no (or minimal) exemptions or deductions? Simplifying parts of the tax code would have benefits, but I don't see what that has to do with the actual flat part of the flat tax. You could equally well remove the deductions and keep graduated tax rates, or have a single rate with all the complex deductions.
A flat tax would also raise rates at the lower end and, especially if you also remove the deductions for her children, make your example single mom's situation worse.

Well the flat tax should first be tested in two small sections of America. Then any problems/imbalances can be identified and adjusted and gradually expand into the rest of America. I've heard the flat tax has worked terrific for the Russian government. The purpose of the flat tax is so when someone like Bill Gates earns 12.8 billion in a year he would pay a solid flat tax... even an 8% tax means 1 billion dallors. In my opinion the flat tax should gradually increase depending on income, thus the single mom would pay 1%.

[Tifone]

@ Aezeal

I just wanted to quote you on everything you said. USA on those things is really a strange country seen from Europe
Like, reading at NTJedi's post and seeing how Social Solidarity isn't a Constitutional duty...
Not to talk about their Creationism in science classes and that strange, old right to have guns everywhere....
And damn, I can't talk about the so called "pro-life" crew (like if the pro-choice are pro-death, lol) because we have some here too...
Hope the Democrats will change something ^^

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Tifone

@ Aezeal

I just wanted to quote you on everything you said. USA on those things is really a strange country seen from Europe
Like, reading at NTJedi's post and seeing how Social Solidarity isn't a Constitutional duty...
Not to talk about their Creationism in science classes and that strange, old right to have guns everywhere....
And damn, I can't talk about the so called "pro-life" crew (like if the pro-choice are pro-death, lol) because we have some here too...
Hope the Democrats will change something ^^

Part of the problem with this country is that religion plays far too large a part in politics. Theoretically there's supposed to be this thing called seperation of church and state, but democrats and republicans both continue to ignore this where it concerns major issues, such as abortion. On the bright side, I think this will die down a bit in 30 or 40 years.

[thejeff]

Well the flat tax should first be tested in two small sections of America. Then any problems/imbalances can be identified and adjusted and gradually expand into the rest of America. I've heard the flat tax has worked terrific for the Russian government. The purpose of the flat tax is so when someone like Bill Gates earns 12.8 billion in a year he would pay a solid flat tax... even an 8% tax means 1 billion dallors. In my opinion the flat tax should gradually increase depending on income, thus the single mom would pay 1%.

So you're not actually for a flat tax, but a progressive marginally increasing tax. That's what "should gradually increase depending on income" is called.
You just want the tax code simplified and the deductions removed?

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Government running healthcare is not the way to proceed. First the working class should not pay for the healthcare of those who are lazy and choose not to work. I could understand those who are temporarily out of work or disabled, but not those who choose to remain out of work despite no health problems....

I am always confused by these sorts of arguments.

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation. Think of it like insurance - you pay the premium, never knowing if you are someone you love will fall ill. The premium is less than the cost of the care that you might need, and everyone pays it so that those who do fall ill, do not suffer needlessly.

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today? Our entire welfare system is completely broken. There are few rational people who are demanding that everyone be taken care of whether they contribute to society or not. Though, generally the compassionate among us would say that everyone should be taken care whether they can contribute to society or not, so as to not leave out the young, the elderly, and the chronically ill. At any rate, a functioning system would have programs that would employ "marginally functional" laborers, enforcing their minimal contribution to society, in return for a marginal living. So if someone wanted to be horribly lazy, they could get by on 15-20 hours of menial government labor, and would be given dorm style living and a small allowance.

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.


I'm just going to stop typing now. Hopefully I've made enough sense for this morning.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

First, under a properly administered national health scenario, everyone would contribute equally to the health-care costs of the nation.

Now see this is where the problem begins... the government has a proven history of problems spending our taxes and thus does not qualify for taking new responsibilities. If a college student is failing the majority of his classes you don't sign him up for another 4 credit class.

Originally Posted by thejeff

Secondly, why do fiscal conservatives insist on looking at "welfare" in the mold of what it is today?

Until our government can fix existing problems I don't have any faith in them controlling more of my life... such as healthcare. To blindly believe a huge government with many problems can run healthcare is like not buckling your seatbelt when the driver is heavily drunk... it's like asking for a trouble.

Originally Posted by thejeff

If you want to look at that oddly controversial quote in a more rational light - "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability." - then you can see that perhaps in the context of our modern society, all a terribly lazy and amotivational slacker needs is a case of ramen and a little dorm room, because all they con contribute is a little bit of mindless drudge work. The point is not to take from the motivated to give to the leech, but rather to reach a balance between contribution and reward. The only point at which any real action needs to be taken, then, is if someone resists contributing enough to account for their bare minimal survival needs (a small room and crappy food), at which point they are put to work in places no one else wants to toil (scrubbing subway toilets, anyone?).

Yes everyone should contribute to society when possible.

Originally Posted by thejeff

You can point at the throngs of homeless in America, and claim that they prove that I am wrong. However, I would argue that if you actually looked at these people, you would find that at least 99% of them fall into 2 categories - those who would gladly contribute but can't find work, and the mentally ill. So the former will work if we find something for them to do, and the latter need to be dealt with in some humane fashion, rather than condemning them to rot and fester in a dark alley, haunted by schizophrenic nightmares.

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

The mentally ill should be helped, the homeless have shelters and programs which are to get them back into being useful into society. I've done volunteer work at these locations and they are given opportunities for returning back into society and some make this progression. The problem is many choose to remain homeless because they don't want any responsibility(cleaning dishes & answering phones) or they have bad habits such as stealing, violence and leeching off others.
Universal healthcare also opens the door to all the drug addicts who would now get free insurance allowing them to fake pains at the hospital so they can receive a fix of free drugs. At least today they need to provide their own insurance before abusing this option.

The "shelters" are understaffed, and very limited in capabilities. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church. And still, very few if any of these "shelters" and other aid programs provide effective counseling to help reintegrate people into society. Many of them have been through traumatic events on their way to living in the streets, and more still experience traumatic events once there. It's kind of silly to postulate that they are actually just lazy or uncooperative, when many of them are scared, confused, conflicted, and deeply depressed - if not outright mentally ill. It is our society, and our economy that allow them to reach bottom, it is sort of our collective responsibility to help them up.

As far as people leeching off of a health care system, sure, people abuse organized systems all the time. I can imagine it's unlikely you have worked at a single place that did not have at least one employee who did not pull their weight. They were abusing their employment situation, earning the same wage as you while expending less effort. Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Unfortunately, the majority of people who are helping the "needy" are also religious groups, that withhold most of their aid unless you enlist in their church.<3

Citation Needed.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Did this mean that your employer in each case was incompetent, and should not be allowed to manage workers? Maybe it just meant that not enough care or attention was put into minimizing the abusability of the workplace, and/or disincentivizing the abuse itself?

The difference here is that if my employer hires someone incompetent or messed up in some other way then its the company which suffers and may eventually die to competition. Now in regards to government we don't have any second, third, tenth, etc., option which will take over. You cannot compare companies to government... apples & rocks.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

We created these problems ourselves. We unleashed this monster of a "federal government" upon our prosperous land. 100 years ago, this was an entirely different world, with different needs, different concerns, and different ideals. 100 years later, everything has changed, but our government is still essentially the same.

A man whom I hold in high regard warned us to keep changing and improving our methods of governance, because he felt that ANY system, if left in place in any given incarnation for too long, would become abused beyond usefulness. He helped make our country, and he told us to keep changing it, to keep innovating - or we would allow ourselves to become burdened with self-interested bureaucrats and bankers.

The people who stand to lose power, will try to convince you that it is un-American to want to change our mode of governance, to want to become something greater than we already are - but in truth, it is the highest of American ideals that we have the ingenuity and the sense to form a more perfect union, each form more perfect than the last.

<3

I agree more perfect than the last... which means we have to repair our current government departments before adding new ones such as healthcare. As I wrote earlier if a college student is having serious problems with his classes you do not sign him up with another 4 credit class.